The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Victor Gascoyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason

This stub lacks any reliable sources to confirm the five aerial victories necessary to be a flying ace despite four years of searching. It cannot be developed beyond the stub stage not just because of the unreliability of the source, but because of the paucity of information available about Gascoyne.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided, possibly redirect to the minimal List of World War I flying aces from the British Empire. Keep. Here is the London Gazette entry confirming he is an ace[1] and also this book mention and quote (if it's the same James Gascoyne). There's another Gazette entry for a James Victor Gascoyne, DFC,[2], but in September 1941. Does someone have access to the UK national archives? Is being an ace considered enough of a qualification? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion on lists of List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories to date has been based on a reliable source listing date, foe, and location of five victories. None of the sources above gives such. In my experience,award citations have often proved erroneous in noting number of victories, and seldom offer any other details.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not sure whether I support it or not, but we do generally have articles on all aces and it does appear he was. For consistency, we therefore either need to delete all of them or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basis of suggested deletion is non-acedom. And only notable aces (those honored with awards) have articles.Georgejdorner (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, like the DFC, which Gascoyne had?! The evidence that he was an ace is cited in the London Gazette. Yes, that is a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being a flying ace is prima facie establishment of notability in and of itself; there is no such thing as a "non-notable ace". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There's some additional info about him in a biography of Arthur Coningham (RAF officer) on pp. 26-27. I've added additional info and references to the article, enough to change my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TheBushranger. Aces are inherently notable. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the DFC citation quoted in the article clearly says he downed five aircraft. MilborneOne (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easy.Squareanimal (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.